I'm a recent transplant to this state and am a bit confused by the laws here. As far as the roster goes it's pretty simple with 1 exception. I work for the Department of Justice (Feds not state). The penal code specifies who can buy what by agency but federal Department of Justice is not listed. Does this mean Federal LEO are not exempt from the roster?

Also, what about magazines? Can Federal LEO buy standard capacity magazines from private parties? What about gun shops? I have credentials/ID's etc...

I am a BP Agent, and haven't had a problem buying magazines here in San Diego. I just have to show my credentials to the shop. I have had gotten a better deal online from DSG than I have at any shops here in SD. I paid $26 for two 30-round magpul mags, including shipping. You just have to register and send them a copy of your creds to verify your LEO status.

Just so you guys know, for the last 13 years there was a memo from Bill Lockyear that stated, basically, that Federal LEO's were to be considered peace officers for the sake of gun purchases. Kamala Harris in her infinite anti-gun, anti-fed wisdom decided that no one besides California Peace Officers as defined in PC 832 were able to to purchase off roster guns or high capacity magazines. Unfortunately most of the gun laws simply state that peace officers are exempt. There is no mention of federal law enforcement.

Now some good news, SB 363 recently passed which amended the law to specify Federal Agents are exempt from the nonsense safe gun roster. Unfortunately they did not make the same changes to the magazine laws.

here is the section of law, but its best to read the bill in it's entirety;

(4) The sale or purchase of a handgun, if the handgun is sold to, or purchased by, the Department of Justice, a police department, a sheriff’s official, a marshal’s office, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the California Highway Patrol, any district attorney’s office, any federal law enforcement agency, or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties. This section does not prohibit the sale to, or purchase by, sworn members of these agencies of a handgun. A person who, under this paragraph, acquires a handgun that is not on the roster required by Section 32015, shall not sell or otherwise transfer ownership of the handgun to a person who is not exempted under this paragraph.

Bottom line, while you can probably buy normal magazines, it's actually illegal. Some gun stores are friendly to us, and others could give two f"s...In fact, going by the strict letter of the law, it looks as though federal agents in possession of normal magazines are in violation of California law.

I've been going back and forth with my State Representitives, as well as CALDOJ, and even a few attorneys trying to get the straight scoop on this. The last word I got from DOJ was that it is unlikely that the magzine ban will be changed anytime this year.

That is true. Federal LEO's are not able to legally purchase standard capacity magazines in CA. I recently bought a glock and they swapped out the mags with 10 round ones. Sucks... So technically all the Federal Agencies operating in CA with standard mags for their duty weapons are in violation of the CA Penal code as I understand it?

That is true. Federal LEO's are not able to legally purchase standard capacity magazines in CA. I recently bought a glock and they swapped out the mags with 10 round ones. Sucks... So technically all the Federal Agencies operating in CA with standard mags for their duty weapons are in violation of the CA Penal code as I understand it?

At least at Proforce they told me they would discount the gun the cost of the mags that they can't give me.

On a side note, I don't care about the mags or even the guns all that much. It's the principle. The Federal Government trusts me to fly on commercial aircraft armed, but California can't trust me with anything more than 10 rounds, or a gun that some politician thinks is unsafe? Nevermind the fact that we assist any local agency when when they ask. So, it's ok for police and sheriff's to work the streets with regular mags, but when I work those same streets, going after the same bad guys I can't be trusted? WTF!!

True, it's not illegal to possess them, however the law prohibts, the importation, sale, transfer, and loaning of any high capacity magazine. So, the mere issuance, or loaning of magazines between Fed's seems to be technically illegal. While I realize that there probably aren't too many police officers that are willing to arrest me for carrying duty magazine, the fact that that possiblity exists is mind blowing.

As long as the Mags are not federally restricted and you're carrying pursuant to LEOSA you're GTG.

I'm just waiting for a Fed, (either active or retired), to get arrested and a subsequent 1983 fed case to be filed, won and civil damages paid for violating "federally protected rights."

Just Sayin'

I am curious. Can you show me where a "hi-cap mag" ban violates HR218? Ammunition not expressly forbidden under federal law is classified as firearm under HR218, however, I have never seen magazines mentioned in the law, perhaps you were confused?

__________________When it becomes necessary to seek protection from your protectors because they've substituted their judgment for clear, standing principles they've sworn to follow and have done so to the extent of attacking the protected, to characterize their actions as justified in furtherance of some nebulous greater good is to align yourself with and endorse criminal wrongdoing. - Author unknown

I am curious. Can you show me where a "hi-cap mag" ban violates HR218? Ammunition not expressly forbidden under federal law is classified as firearm under HR218, however, I have never seen magazines mentioned in the law, perhaps you were confused?

The applicability of LEOSA to large-capacity magazines in California is a little unsettled.

The federal DOJ has published guidance that LEOSA does not apply to magazines and to ammunition. They maintain these items may be restricted by the states.

The LEOSA exempts (with some exceptions) qualified persons from state laws restricting the carrying of concealed weapons. California case law (refer to People v Hale) has held that a magazine is a constituent part of a firearm. Therefore, at least in California, LEOSA would trump the California restrictions on large-capacity magazines. The argument is that the magazine is part of the firearm, and that laws governing the firearm are trumped by LEOSA. Please note the argument only works for California because Hale was a California state case. Also please note this is argument only. I'm not aware of any case ruling on the LEOSA-Magazine issue.

California case law (refer to People v Hale) has held that a magazine is a constituent part of a firearm. Therefore, at least in California, LEOSA would trump the California restrictions on large-capacity magazines. The argument is that the magazine is part of the firearm, and that laws governing the firearm are trumped by LEOSA. Please note the argument only works for California because Hale was a California state case. Also please note this is argument only. I'm not aware of any case ruling on the LEOSA-Magazine issue.

From the CA AG's Q&A on LEOSA:
Can active/retired officers carry large capacity magazines in states that restrict large capacity magazines? PC 12020(b) exceptions?
It appears that under California law (12020(a)(2) PC), nobody may import large capacity magazines into California. There does not appear to be an exemption for law enforcement officers from other states. This may all lead somebody to ask whether federal law enforcement officers moving or being relocated into this state are in violation of California law if they bring their large capacity magazines with them, since such officers are in violation of California law and there is no exemption for them.

IMO Hale would not apply, if that were the case, federal leo's would be able to buy "hi-cap mags" because they would be an "integral" part of the firearm. Where a hole gets punched into your argument is that a 10 round magazine, will function just as well as a 15 round magazine, and as such, California's magazine ban wouldn't be denying an "integral" part of a firearm only the capacity that part holds, unless your argument (which I doubt) was that a active/retired leo's gun will only function with "hi-capacity" magazines.

The post I was responding to made the claim that LEOSA trumps a state's right to restrict magazine capacity and it does not, there was enough of a concern in regards to ammo that Obama signed a revised version of LEOSA to include ammo, however, magazines were never addressed and not expressly mentioned in the law.

__________________When it becomes necessary to seek protection from your protectors because they've substituted their judgment for clear, standing principles they've sworn to follow and have done so to the extent of attacking the protected, to characterize their actions as justified in furtherance of some nebulous greater good is to align yourself with and endorse criminal wrongdoing. - Author unknown

At least at Proforce they told me they would discount the gun the cost of the mags that they can't give me.

On a side note, I don't care about the mags or even the guns all that much. It's the principle. The Federal Government trusts me to fly on commercial aircraft armed, but California can't trust me with anything more than 10 rounds, or a gun that some politician thinks is unsafe? Nevermind the fact that we assist any local agency when when they ask. So, it's ok for police and sheriff's to work the streets with regular mags, but when I work those same streets, going after the same bad guys I can't be trusted? WTF!!

Welcome to California. Where if it doesn't make sense, it's going to happen!

From the CA AG's Q&A on LEOSA:
Can active/retired officers carry large capacity magazines in states that restrict large capacity magazines? PC 12020(b) exceptions?
It appears that under California law (12020(a)(2) PC), nobody may import large capacity magazines into California. There does not appear to be an exemption for law enforcement officers from other states. This may all lead somebody to ask whether federal law enforcement officers moving or being relocated into this state are in violation of California law if they bring their large capacity magazines with them, since such officers are in violation of California law and there is no exemption for them.

IMO Hale would not apply, if that were the case, federal leo's would be able to buy "hi-cap mags" because they would be an "integral" part of the firearm. Where a hole gets punched into your argument is that a 10 round magazine, will function just as well as a 15 round magazine, and as such, California's magazine ban wouldn't be denying an "integral" part of a firearm only the capacity that part holds, unless your argument (which I doubt) was that a active/retired leo's gun will only function with "hi-capacity" magazines.

The post I was responding to made the claim that LEOSA trumps a state's right to restrict magazine capacity and it does not, there was enough of a concern in regards to ammo that Obama signed a revised version of LEOSA to include ammo, however, magazines were never addressed and not expressly mentioned in the law.

We're not going to have a definitive answer until there is a California test case.

You're quite correct that my assessment of Hale would allow a federal LEO to purchase, or manufacture, a large-capacity magazine because LEOSA would make Penal Code section 32310 inapplicable to the officer.

I don't see the "hole" that you're referring to with regard to the magazine capacity. Under Hale, a 10-round magazine is part of the firearm and a 15 round magazine is also part of the firearm. As long as it's part of the firearm, LEOSA controls and 32310 goes out the window. If you're maintaining that California can regulate the capacity of a firearm part (the magazine), then any such law would be a regulation of the firearm (including its parts) and any such law would be inapplicable under LEOSA. I agree the firearm would work just fine with a legal-standard capacity magazine of 10 rounds, but it would probably serve the officer's needs better with a large-capacity magazine and, so long as the magazine is part of the firearm, it's the officer's choice.

But we still need an officer to volunteer to sit behind the "Defendant's" sign in a test case to know any of this for sure.

We're not going to have a definitive answer until there is a California test case.

Agreed!

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickD427

You're quite correct that my assessment of Hale would allow a federal LEO to purchase, or manufacture, a large-capacity magazine because LEOSA would make Penal Code section 32310 inapplicable to the officer.

To bad the CA AG doesn't support your assessment, I do, just playing devil's advocate. I would be interested in how the AG would respond to a letter asking for clarification on this matter, that could be a way for federal leo's to be able to again purchase "hi-cap" mags, or at the very least import them again. I think I will have to fire off a letter to my state assemblyman, a very 2A friendly guy who may get a quicker response.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickD427

I don't see the "hole" that you're referring to with regard to the magazine capacity. Under Hale, a 10-round magazine is part of the firearm and a 15 round magazine is also part of the firearm. As long as it's part of the firearm, LEOSA controls and 32310 goes out the window. If you're maintaining that California can regulate the capacity of a firearm part (the magazine), then any such law would be a regulation of the firearm (including its parts) and any such law would be inapplicable under LEOSA. I agree the firearm would work just fine with a legal-standard capacity magazine of 10 rounds, but it would probably serve the officer's needs better with a large-capacity magazine and, so long as the magazine is part of the firearm, it's the officer's choice.

I agree with your assessment, a part is a part, regardless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickD427

But we still need an officer to volunteer to sit behind the "Defendant's" sign in a test case to know any of this for sure.

And that is the crux of the problem.

__________________When it becomes necessary to seek protection from your protectors because they've substituted their judgment for clear, standing principles they've sworn to follow and have done so to the extent of attacking the protected, to characterize their actions as justified in furtherance of some nebulous greater good is to align yourself with and endorse criminal wrongdoing. - Author unknown

I am curious. Can you show me where a "hi-cap mag" ban violates HR218? Ammunition not expressly forbidden under federal law is classified as firearm under HR218, however, I have never seen magazines mentioned in the law, perhaps you were confused?

Here's the short answer;

When you are legally carrying, under LEOSA, a handgun that came from the factory with a factory magazine that holds more than 10 rounds you're in compliance with LEOSA and the Federal Supremacy Clause will take precedence.

There are several LEO Advocacy Groups just waiting for the first CA PC arrest and or filing to rebut the arrest with a transference of the State case into Federal Court and a concurrent 1983 filing.

I pity the CA LEO who tries to PC arrest a LEOSA card carrier for a CA. Hi-Cap violation. He/She and their Sgt. better have professional liability insurance.

When you are legally carrying, under LEOSA, a handgun that came from the factory with a factory magazine that holds more than 10 rounds you're in compliance with LEOSA and the Federal Supremacy Clause will take precedence.

Possession of hi-cap mags is not illegal in the state, however, importation is illegal unless your a California leo or have an exemption, which out of state leo's and federal leo's do not, per the PC. HR218 does not mention magazines at all, the original law didn't even mention ammo, and there was enough of a concern that an enhancement to the law was added to keep leo's from being prosecuted in states, like NJ, that have hollow point ammo bans, magazines still have not been mentioned in the federal law, therefore leaving it up to the states.

I think RickD's assessment of people vs. Hale would be a viable defense at least in California.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AR15Man

There are several LEO Advocacy Groups just waiting for the first CA PC arrest and or filing to rebut the arrest with a transference of the State case into Federal Court and a concurrent 1983 filing.

Unfortunately that is what may have to happen in order to put the debate to rest. It would be easier and cheaper for leo's to lobby their federal legislators to add hi-cap mags to 18 USC 926B and end the debate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AR15Man

I pity the CA LEO who tries to PC arrest a LEOSA card carrier for a CA. Hi-Cap violation. He/She and their Sgt. better have professional liability insurance.

Just Sayin'

I don't think that the California leo or his/her SGT have much to worry about if they are enforcing state law (qualified immunity anyone?). IMO if people vs. Hale is successfully applied in California the case would be dropped, however, qualified immunity would still apply.

If people vs. Hale is successful it would only apply in California since HR 218 by itself doesn't protect magazines, only the carrying of firearms and ammo.

__________________When it becomes necessary to seek protection from your protectors because they've substituted their judgment for clear, standing principles they've sworn to follow and have done so to the extent of attacking the protected, to characterize their actions as justified in furtherance of some nebulous greater good is to align yourself with and endorse criminal wrongdoing. - Author unknown

To M1. The California magazine and weapons bans do not apply to Federal agencies, their official purchases or equipment issued to their employees. Note here it applies to U.S. government property and employees in their official capacity.